Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S.Epcos (I) Pvt. Ltd on 11 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/1540/2004-Mum. In E/Co-439/2004-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/JMJ/35-36/916/NSK/APL/2004 dt.30.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nashik ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik :
Appellant VS M/s.EPCOS (I) Pvt. Ltd.
:
Respondent Appearance Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (A.R) for appellant None for respondents.
CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 11/05/2012 Date of decision : 11/05/2012 ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang Heard the learned Superintendent (A.R.). None appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 7/2001-Cus. Dated 6/2/2001 is not applicable retrospectively. We find that this issue is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indoworth India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T.46 (Tri.-LB) the Tribunal held that Circular No.7/2001-Cus. Dated 6.2.2001 is prospective in nature.
3. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find that no merit in the impugned order. The appeal and cross objection is dismissed.
(Dictated in court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
2